The sociology of social movements has become an increasingly important field in the discipline in recent decades. However, the study of tribal and political revolts or movements has long been a dominant tradition in 

. The notions of “Primitive Rebellion” and “Social Banditry” introduced by 

 were not fruitfully used by scholars of tribal and peasant revolts until 

 and his colleagues pioneered the approach of “Subaltern studies” on a large scale. An important approach to the study of tribal/peasant movements has been articulated by Ranajit Guha and his fellow historians in India and abroad. Popularly called ‘

, this approach seeks to restore balance by emphasizing the role of people’s politics versus elite politics in Indian history.

Thus, “elite” and “people” are considered binary domains. Proponents of this approach, claim that elite historiography, whether neo-colonialist or neo-nationalist, has always overestimated the role played by elites in the construction of Indian nationalism, but that it has failed to recognize, and also to interpret correctly, the contributions made from the people and the masses autonomously, independent of the elite. Alongside the sphere of elitist politics, there always existed, during the colonial period, another sphere of Indian politics in which the main actors were not the dominant groups in the indigenous society, but the classes and groups of “subalterns” who make up the mass of the working population and the intermediate layers of cities and towns, the people. Subaltern historiography treats “the people” (subalternity) as an autonomous field that neither originates nor depends on elitist politics.

Therefore, while the mobilization in the domain of elite politics takes place vertically, in that of subaltern politics it takes place horizontally. In his analysis of tribal and peasant uprisings in colonial India, Guha makes no secret of the fact that his approach to the study of social movements is essentially part of the general tradition of 

, but a variant of it altogether. His words derive from 

 formulations, which are refreshingly original and thus intellectually very stimulating. With all the candor that one often associates with a Marxist, Guha believes that the task of historiography is to interpret the past to change the world that is today and that such change involves a radical transformation of consciousness.

 refers to the consciousness and identity of marginalized groups in the region, particularly in the context of their political, social, and economic struggles. This awareness often emerges from experiences of oppression and exclusion of these groups. In Kashmir, this awareness has significantly influenced and intersected with 

. Populism in the region can be seen in a way when political leaders and movements exploit the grievances and aspirations of these marginalized communities to gain support. Leaders often structure their speeches around resistance against perceived injustices or external dominance, thus mobilizing people by appealing to their subordinate experiences.

The interplay between subaltern consciousness and populism in Kashmir is complex. Populist movements amplify the voices of the underdog, sometimes providing a platform for their concerns, but also shaping and reorienting their demands to fit the broader political agenda. These dynamics influence the political landscape influencing local and international perceptions of the conflict and governance in Kashmir. Kashmir, a region characterized by its unique socio-political landscape, has been the focal point of various struggles and movements. Of these, it is particularly important to consider the experiences and consciousness of the subaltern classes—those marginalized by socio-economic and political hierarchies.

Populism in Kashmir, as a political approach, has played a crucial role in shaping the discourse around these struggles. This essay explores the impact of populism in Kashmir on the social, economic, and political consciousness of the lower classes, highlighting their struggles and aspirations. The socio-political and economic structure of Kashmir has been significantly influenced by its colonial past and the resulting political turmoil. The lower classes, including marginalized ethnic groups and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, have long faced systemic oppression. The historical context of these struggles includes the feudal system, land conflicts, and economic disenfranchisement. The persistence of these problems has contributed to the formation of a distinct subaltern consciousness in Kashmir, characterized by resistance to existing power structures and aspiration for greater social justice.

Populism, characterized by its appeal to the people against the elite, has been an important feature of Kashmiri politics. Political leaders and movements used populist rhetoric to address the grievances of the lower classes. This approach often includes promises of socio-economic reforms, justice, and equitable distribution of resources. In Kashmir, populism has been instrumental in mobilizing the masses and articulating their struggles on a wider platform. However, the effectiveness of this populism often depends on the ability of leaders to address the problems facing subordinate groups rather than simply exploiting their grievances for political purposes. Social struggles in Kashmir are deeply linked to populist movements.

Issues such as caste-based discrimination, gender inequality, and regional disparities have been highlighted by populist leaders seeking support from marginalized communities. Populist rhetoric often emphasizes the need for social reform and justice, resonating with the subaltern consciousness that demands recognition and equal treatment. However, the implementation of the promised social changes often fails, leading to the disillusionment of subordinate groups and their constant struggle for real social transformation.

Economic hardships in Kashmir, including unemployment, poverty, and lack of access to resources, have been at the center of populist discourse. Leaders used populist strategies to promise economic reforms, job creation, and better living conditions for the economically disadvantaged. Despite these promises, the real impact on the ground is often limited. The gap between populist promises and the reality of economic improvement has fueled frustration among the lower classes, who continue to struggle with economic hardship. Politically, populism played a dual role in Kashmir. On one hand, populist movements allowed the lower classes to voice their grievances and demand political change. On the other hand, they have sometimes led to political polarization and conflict, complicating efforts to find meaningful political solutions.

Subaltern groups used populist rhetoric to challenge existing power structures and defend political representation and autonomy. However, the political landscape remains contested, and achieving substantive policy change has been difficult. Populism in Kashmir significantly influenced the consciousness and struggle of the lower classes. Although it has allowed marginalized groups to express their grievances and aspirations, its real impact on social, economic, and political realities has been mixed. The effectiveness of populism in responding to the struggles of the underclasses depends largely on the ability of political leaders to translate populist rhetoric into concrete reforms and solutions. As Kashmir continues to navigate its complex socio-political landscape, the experiences and consciousness of the underclasses will remain a crucial element in shaping the future of the region.

This is a guest entry written for The Jamia Review. 

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.

Articles by Lateef Zadoo

Subaltern Consciousness And Populism in Kashmir: Kashmiri Society And History

Subaltern Consciousness And Populism in Kashmir: Kashmiri Society And History